E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, whose write-in bid depends on Alaska voters remembering and reproducing her name on the ballot on Nov. 2nd, talked today about her first general-election campaign video which, awkwardly, misspelled her name.
In an interview on The Daily Rundown, Murkowski said the campaign video was produced by "volunteers." The original video, which spelled her campaign Web site, "LisaMurkwski.com," has since been pulled down. The director of Alaska's Division of Elections has said misspelled ballots may be counted if a voter's intent is clear.
Murkowski called her Democratic opponent, Sitka Mayor Scott McAdams, a "nice guy," who is "unelectable," and Joe Miller, the Republican who beat her in the Aug. 24th primary, "outside the mainstream."
She said that although she has stepped down from her Senate leadership position, she intends to caucus with Republicans if she's reelected.
Leave a Comment:
She is a real class act and I'm sure the people of Alaska will give her what she deserves...
They already did and now they'll have to do it again.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, intends to caucus with Republicans if she's reelected. Oh well, a bird in the hand is worth is worth 2 in a bush.
She isn't going to be reelected so it doesn't much matter.
This is from January 2010 -
The conservative Washington Times isn’t particularly friendly to Democrats, but it is intellectually honest enough (at least in this one instance) to note that President Obama has been significantly more successful at cutting spending than his Republican predecessor:
"President Obama notched substantial successes in spending cuts last year, winning 60 percent of his proposed cuts and managing to get Congress to ax several programs that had bedeviled President George W. Bush for years.
The administration says Congress accepted at least $6.9 billion of the $11.3 billion in discretionary spending cuts Mr. Obama proposed for the current fiscal year. An analysis by The Washington Times found that Mr. Obama was victorious in getting Congress to slash 24 programs and achieved some level of success in reducing nine other programs. [...]
By comparison, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says Mr. Bush won 40 percent of his spending cuts in fiscal 2006 and won less than 15 percent of his proposed cuts for 2007 and 2008.
Ezra Klein points out that the contrast becomes starker when you take into account President Bush’s trillion dollar tax cuts, and his trillions of dollars in unfunded Medicare spending. Not only is this all true, it’s also kind of typical. Conservative rhetoric notwithstanding, Democratic administrations are routinely more fiscally responsible than their Republican counterparts."
http://usjamerica.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/the-washington-times-notices-that-democrats-are-fiscally-responsible-republicans-not-so-much/
____________
So the so-called conservatives, instead of talking about this, instead use the race card. And the Muslim card. And the death panel card. And the immigration card. And the DADT card. You know, the usual culture war cards. Let's get this straight. The Republicans ARE NOT CONSERVATIVES on fiscal policies.
They're just more into disliking anybody and everybody. That's their message. We've seen it over and over and over for years and years.
So while they make up every lie under the sun, the Democrats and President Obama govern. Responsibly. We just continue to clean up their messes. Time and time again.
if you can honestly call the spending spree that the democrats have been on responsible governing then you sir are a lost cause.
Pat-
It's time for all Democratic candidates to call out the electorate for being unable to recognize the brilliance of President Obama's leadership...that is, those candidates who are still willing to appear with the President in public.
Might as well do it now...call it a preemptive strike.
Because, Pat...
I'm relatively certain...no, make that absolutely certain, that most First Read regulars are going to launch a no-holds-barred assault on American voters after the November 2nd midterm elections.
For once I'm inclined to agree with you.
I lived under two terms of George W. Bush, I can survive a Republican Congress, (again.) If history is any judge, American voters are not going to be any happier with a Republican Congress than they were with the one that came in 1994.
Amy, what exactly happened to you personally under George W. Bush? I'm thinking it's about the same as me under Obama.
Also, if history is any judge, that Republican congress from 1994 to 2000 made Bill Clinton the greatest president of the late 20th century.